Eric O. Gionet

The plaintiff, a highly successful salesman who managed a lucrative drill rig production account, agreed to a temporary layoff during an economic downturn.

Upon his recall, the defendant employer offered him a vague sales position that excluded the lucrative drill rig account, fundamentally altering his duties and compensation.

The court found the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and was not required to mitigate his damages by accepting the ill-defined new role.

The plaintiff was awarded 16 months' pay in lieu of notice.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding the dedication and acceptance of land.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact on dedication and acceptance were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, and that there was no error in the application of the law to those facts.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that an all risks insurance policy covered damage to the respondent marina's forklift caused by a disgruntled former employee.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the exclusion clause relied upon by the insurer was ambiguous and should be interpreted narrowly against the insurer (contra proferentem).

The appeal was allowed in part, on consent, only to reduce the damages awarded to the $50,000 limit under the simplified rules.